Industry witnesses urge statutory time limits, single‑lead decisions and more agency capacity to unblock projects

Industry and permitting advocates told the House Natural Resources Committee that the current permitting system is a chief obstacle to delivering roads, transmission lines, and power plants.

"Projects that require federal permits, right of ways, and other approvals are subject to environmental reviews, which are often redundant," said Tony Bowles, board member of the American Road & Transportation Builders Association and vice president at Wright Brothers Construction. Bowles said permitting uncertainty increases project costs and "dilutes limited public sector resources," and recommended three reforms: encourage more states to take on NEPA assignments, enforce one‑federal‑decision timelines and page limits, and raise the federal funding threshold for categorical exclusion to $10 million.

Tony Campbell, president and CEO of East Kentucky Power Cooperative, told the committee that demand and peak load growth are already straining regional grids. "We are planning, building and maintaining the power plants and power lines to keep electricity flowing," Campbell said, but added that permitting delays threaten reliability and investment. He urged Congress to reduce unnecessary litigation delays, require challengers to have participated in public comment before suing, and reinforce that NEPA should focus on direct, foreseeable impacts within an agency's authority.

Alex Hergot, president and CEO of the Permitting Institute, described a front‑end problem he called "bureaucratic limbo," where developers undertake costly pre‑application work to anticipate agency expectations before the formal NEPA clock starts. "For every 1 project that moves forward to just get posted in the federal register, 20 die on the vine," Hergot said. He urged Congress to clarify statutory boundaries (for example, the scope of "reasonably foreseeable" effects), finish work begun in the Fiscal Responsibility Act and close what he called opportunities for speculative downstream theories of harm that increase litigation risk.

Common recommendations from industry witnesses included:

- Create or enforce a single lead agency and a binding schedule for joint reviews; expand one‑federal‑decision authority to environmental assessments as well as EISs. - Limit post‑decision litigation windows and require challengers to have participated in public comments before filing suit. - Increase categorical exclusion thresholds to account for higher construction costs and reduce unnecessary EAs/EISs for lower‑risk projects. - Invest in agency staffing and modern e‑permitting tools to process applications faster and provide transparent dashboards tracking progress.

Witnesses acknowledged tradeoffs. Campbell said agencies need more staff but emphasized projects "need to be built" to meet rising demand, while Bowles argued standardization and enforcement of existing limits would yield savings. Hergot warned that absent statutory clarity, litigation and front‑end overbuild will continue to drive up the cost of preparing applications to tens of millions of dollars for major projects.

No formal proposals were voted on at the hearing; witnesses provided materials for the record and committee members asked for follow‑up answers.

Sources: Testimony of Tony Bowles, Tony Campbell, Alex Hergot.